Richard III, broken sword, (1452-1485) (37) The painting of Richard and the broken sword, like that of the oil painting held in the National Gallery, was painted after the death of Richard III.After thorough examination of the medium on which the portrait was painted, the estimated timing of its creation falls between 1523 and 1555, well into the Tudor reign.The paintings are also similar in the way in which they both disproportionately exacerbate the height of Richard’s left shoulder in relation to his right, a feature that was a standard target in any Tudor propaganda, particularly in Tudor literature, as seen earlier. However, in this particular painting of Richard, he is also shown to be holding a broken sword.The sword is symbolic in the sense that it represents Richard’s defeat at the Battle of Bosworth, against Tudor claimant, Henry Tudor (37).The sword that Richard clutches in the painting is believed to signify the state, the breaking of the blade could be interpreted to represent the deterioration of his kingship, and the loss of control he now has over the state and his people (38). Following an X-ray examination of the painting, it was concluded that the left shoulder in the painting was raised higher again, however, it then underwent overpainting to lower it slightly. It was suggested that this likely occurred in the 18th century, when Richard’s reputation was, yet again, questioned.This is significant, as it demonstrates how his image has changed over time, and is reflective of the change in contemporary, and political environments, and how a person’s narrative can be determined by such factors, particularly in the case of Richard III. A vast majority of these paintings of Richard during the 18th century would have been exhibited in long galleries within grand houses of the Tudor period.These galleries acted not only as a source of entertainment for guests, but also as a form of education. Portraits of past rules have the potential to influence perceptions about past events, being used as moral exemplars (39). For this reason, Richard’s presence in such galleries would have been significant and would have been used to display the dangers of tyranny, acting as a warning against moral corruption. “Examining Richard’s physical profile can standardise against Tudor propaganda and act as a judgement to its credibility”
Is there validity to claims from the likes of More, Shakespeare and Rous? This view resurfaced in force following the discovery of Richard’s body in a Leicester car- park, sparking intrigue and curiosity, not only amongst historians, but also amongst the general public. Such events have acted as a catalyst to the revising of opinion on a man once considered to be the pure spawn of evil.Whilst DNA analysis was successful in confirming the body to be that of Richard III, further skeletal analysis is telling. Examining Richard’s physical profile can standardise against Tudor propaganda and act as a judgement to its credibility. Further analysis, using mitochondrial DNA, allowed scientists to confirm the body to be that of Richard III’s.This was soon followed by a clinical evaluation and diagnosis of Richard’s spine, which stated that the Cobb angle must exceed 10 degrees, being the minimum angulation for a scoliosis diagnosis. Richard’s curvature was a large 75 degrees (40). However, scientists concluded that the angle would have been exacerbated to a further 90 degrees throughout his lifetime. Moreover, it is arguable that Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard’s physical form is partially accurate as he was in fact a ‘hunchback’ with a skeletal abnormality. Further
11
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software